It should be noted that the authors of this paper conducted the evaluation of BMLK (Clements, Lewis, and Ginsburg, 2008) and that Ginsburg is one of the curriculums developers.
 There are several reasons we do not draw any conclusions about the relative efficacy of Building Blocks and PreK Math even though results from the Building Blocks evaluation study found that children using it scored significantly higher than children using PreK Math. First, the evidence from the federally funded evaluations of the two curricula indicates that both PreK Math and Building Blocks are more effective than the control curricula used in the control conditions. Second, both evaluations were conducted using mathematics assessments designed by the curriculum developers/evaluators. As we said before, this is not to suggest that that either assessment tool is overly aligned with a specific curriculum or to question either assessments validity. Rather, we suggest that it is premature to draw conclusions regarding the relative effectiveness of the two curriculum based on two studies, each of which used a different mathematics assessment. In fact, both curricula have been evaluated by the What Works Clearinghouse and received its highest rating: strong evidence of a positive effect with no overriding contrary evidence.
 ACS child care centers offer a kindergarten year for their students, and many students choose to complete the kindergarten year at the child care center rather than transitioning into a public elementary school. Many kindergarten programs in New York City are half-day, while the ACS child care centers offer full-day care and are intended to meet the needs of working parents.
 All mathematics curricula reviewed except for Childrens School Success reported a positive statistically significant impact on childrens mathematics knowledge.
"index.pdf" (pdf, 307.32Kb)
"apa.pdf" (pdf, 78.45Kb)
"apb.pdf" (pdf, 401.85Kb)
"apc.pdf" (pdf, 288.78Kb)
"apd.pdf" (pdf, 90.04Kb)
"ape.pdf" (pdf, 190.7Kb)